Another view of our Israeli/Palestinian guest - Rafi Eliasov

Recently SAUJS hosted the Palestinian ambassador in a discussion panel on recent events in the Middle East and prospects for peace. I will firstly begin by analyzing the broad deficiencies of the event and then analyze the content of each speaker.
Broadly speaking, essentially I think SAUJS was hosting a speaker in favour of a one state solution, counter to its mandate and constitution as a Zionist organization. While the event has been labeled, by some SAUJS members as ‘assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved’, I think the event did not represent the ethos of SAUJS and failed to provide a balanced perspective on the issues. While it is essential that SAUJS as an organization empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, their plight is continually emphasized both by the national media and by on campus organizations such as Amnesty International and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. It is therefore, in my opinion, our responsibility to add balance to this aberration.
According to Mr Pogrund both parties agreed to negotiations without pre-conditions and then immediately set numerous conditions that must be fulfilled in order for negotiations to begin. While this is indeed true for the Palestinians who demanded a recognition that the 67’ borders would be the basis of the negotiations and a freeze of settlement building, this is untrue of Israel . Not only did Israel repeatedly agree to immediate and unconditional negotiations, but it imposed a moratorium in order to appease the Palestinians , this unprecedented step yielded little in return. Additionally Mr Pogrund repeatedly identified settlements as the major obstacle to peace. While settlements are no doubt unhelpful to the situation, as stated above Israel discontinued their expansion. What Mr Pogrund failed to address was the anti-Semitism created by the Palestinian national movement that precipitated a segmented society. This stigma, which condemned Palestinians to death for merely associating with Jews, has existed since the days of Haj Amin Al Husseini. Palestinian organizations such as the ‘Black Hand’ and ‘the Lightning’, executed Palestinians with ties to the Yishuv this served as an example, with the goal of creating an utter state of segregation between Jews and no-Jews. This ideology is the basis on which no Jew can live in a future Palestinian state and Israel is forced to withdraw its civilians and dismantle settlements.
Ultimately the perception that Arafat was a visionary, portrayed by his Excellency the Palestinian ambassador is undermined by fact. Not only did Arafat reject the Clinton Parameters (a far reaching proposal that encompassed massive compromises by Israel), but he also pillaged and horded international funds intended for the Palestinian people . Likewise the portrayal of Netanyahu as an uncompromising peace partner is similarly false. It was Netanyahu who concluded the Hebron protocols, which led to autonomy for the PA in this controversial city. Additionally the Wye River-Memorandum, which gave the PA additional territory in the West Bank was condoned by Netanyahu. Netanyahu has continued that trend, to the possible disgruntlement of his consistency by lifting road block , improving the Palestinian economy and stopping settlements.
While dialogue is indeed useful, I would rather SAUJS ensure that its constituency receives a balanced education on these issues. While the Palestinian Ambassador should be applauded for attending the event, it is the base racism of those who condemned him for speaking to Jews that is the root of the Middle East conflict. In future if we host a speaker whose views are contentious, we as an organization should endeavor to ensure that two divergent opinions are expressed as appose to two similar and contentious opinions as was the case at this event. This is true when an event is portrayed as a debate or where speakers are portrayed as representing the two sides of the issue.

Rafi Eliasov writes in his personal capacity. This article does not represent the views of SAUJS.